LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 20 - July 26, 2026

NOMINAL INDEXDr. Uma Gupta v Satya Prakash Kumawat & Anr.; 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 289Sushma Dayal v Praveen Lodha; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 290Dileep Kumar Yadav v State of Rajasthan & Anr.Imran Mansoori v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 291Sheikh Tarique v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 292National Insurance Company Ltd. v Parmeshwar & Anr., and other connected appeal; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 293Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 294Ranjeet v Central Bureau of Investigation; 2026 LiveLaw(Raj) 295Mohan Lal Sharma v Ashok Vardhan Sharma & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 296P v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 297Shri Mahadev Ji Kaluram Ji Ki Bawdi v Shri Milap Singh & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 298Barbdivya v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 299Anand Singh v Union of India; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 301Ashok Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 302Order/Judgments of the WeekOrder Rejecting Plea To Recall Witness For Cross-Examination Is Interlocutory, Not Revisable: Rajasthan High CourtTitle: Dr. Uma Gupta v Satya Prakash Kumawat & Anr.Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 289The Rajasthan High Court has held that an order rejecting an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking recall of a witness for cross-examination is interlocutory in nature and, therefore, cannot be challenged in revision proceedings under Section 397 CrPC.Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside an order of the revisional court which had permitted the accused in a cheque bounce case to cross-examine the complainant, after holding that the revision petition itself was not maintainable.NI Court, Commercial Court Proceedings Stand On Equal Footing; Accused Entitled To Original Records For Defence: Rajasthan High CourtTitle: Sushma Dayal v Praveen LodhaCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 290The Rajasthan High Court has held that proceedings before a Court established under the Negotiable Instruments Act and a Commercial Court stand on an equal footing, and an accused cannot be denied access to original records necessary for his defence merely because they have been summoned in parallel proceedings.The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that the right to a fair trial includes access to materials required for effective cross-examination and defence, and set aside a trial court order refusing to summon records relating to a criminal case alleging interpolation of a cheque. “Once the original record is available and the matter pertains to interpolation in the cheque and counter-foil, certainly the original cheque has to be put across to the complainant in the cross-examination and the same purpose cannot be solved by submitting photocopy or the certified copy. Therefore, it is the right of the petitioner to put up his defence and best opportunity is required to be given to him,” Court said.Rajasthan High Court Calls For Mechanism To Ensure Timely Appearance Of Investigating Officers Before Trial CourtsTitle: Dileep Kumar Yadav v State of Rajasthan & Anr.Taking note of a recurring pattern of absenteeism of Investigating Officers (IOs) before the trial courts, resulting in repeated adjournments solely for securing their presence, the Rajasthan High Court has called for a systemic mechanism for coordination between the Police Department and the Directorate of prosecution.The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sindhu issued notice to the Directorate of Prosecution, Rajasthan and the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to present the existing mechanism (if any) for ensuring the appearance of IOs before the trial courts, and to indicate proposed measures for addressing the recurring issue to ensure timely conclusion of criminal trials.The Court observed that IOs are public servants and are duty-bound to appear before the trial courts whenever their presence is required and to cooperate in the expeditious conclusion of criminal trials.Seized Money Can't Be Retained After Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Release Of ₹7.35 Lakh In Gambling Case, Seeks I-T VerificationTitle: Imran Mansoori v State of RajasthanCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 291The Rajasthan High Court has held that once a party stands acquitted in a gambling case, based on withdrawal of the criminal case, there is no reason to retain the seized money in the Treasury or in the Government Fund.The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand thus directed the authorities to release the amount seized from the petitioner, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall disclose the details of the source of receipt of the amount.The Court held that the details submitted by the petitioner shall be verified by the Income Tax Department, and if the explanation was not found to be satisfactory, appropriate action could be taken against the petitioner.Rajasthan High Court Denies Relief To Candidate Unable To Clear MBBS In 14 Years, Says Can't Ignore Fate Of PatientsTitle: Sheikh Tarique v Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj)...

LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 20 - July 26, 2026

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 20 - July 26, 2026

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers